1. How it works?
The essence of ideagoras is to bring together bright and creative people and companies which are in need of innovative solutions for complicated problems. InnoCentive.com, one of the examples of ideagoras, refer to talented people as “Solvers” and to the companies as “Seekers”; the problem in question is called a “Challenge”.
Let us consider Innocentive.com to explain how the ideagoras works. Even though there might be variations in operations of such “market places for creative solutions”, the general principles remain the same.
The companies which cannot resolve a problem internally, within the available R&D department, can post a problem on the InnoCentive website. As a prerequisite, the company – “seeker” – should already be registered on the site.
As soon as the problem is announced, registered problem-solvers (creative people of any profession, mostly talented scientists) can propose their solutions for the company. Consequently, the company can try out the proposed ideas and select the best one. The author of the best idea will be rewarded.
Generally, ideagoras allow talented individuals and companies in need for innovative solutions to meet together, when former browse available challenges and the latter post their challenges on the website. Innocentive.com guarantees confidentiality, so that the solver will probably never know the company for which he worked and, vice versa, the seeker will never know the person, who solved the matter under question.
Can ideagoras give good results?
According to the latest article in BusinessWeek on ideagoras, InnoCentive helped to find solutions for 400 challenges out of total 800 submitted. This alone represents that ideagoras can work.
Moreover, as an indirect confirmation that ideagoras can give good results, InnoCentive has attracted a large set of well-known organizations, including Procter&Gamble. Highly unlikely, that the organizations would join a market place for innovation if these marketplaces were not considered to be successful, or at least promising methods to generate creative solutions.
As well-known proverb puts it, two heads are better than one. In cases of business, 170000 registered solvers can be better than single R&D department. The underlying principle is that there are huge chances that diverse group of talented individuals, with different academic and educational backgrounds will work over your problem. Therefore, there pot4enbtially a large set of solutions for your problem outside your organization. As a consequence, one of the proposed solutions is very likely to be exactly what you were desperately looking for.
Advantages to the firms.
There is much more knowledge out there. There are chances that somebody has a [potential solution for the problem.
Ability to reach broad set of talented professionals. The ideagoras potentially allow to reach individuals from different fields of expertise, such as academics, engineers, entrepreneurs and other professionals. As a result, proposed solutions can be indeed out-of-the-ordinary, as each solver investigates the problem from his/her expertise. Sometimes solutions can be found from the different areas of business and science.
For each problem, the company will receive hundreds or thousands of solutions. Therefore, there a potential to create “solution bank” and deploy the ideas later on, when an opportunity arises.
Ideagoras are rather low-cost methods to generate innovative ideas. Maintenance of large R&D departments within the company is costly, especially for medium-sized enterprises. Therefore, occasional reference to ideagoras can be less costly than maintain an army of scientists within the organizations.
The ideagoras allow companies to exploit the benefits of the talented minds without requirement to hire them for full-time job. Thus the company does not enter any employment obligations, does not have to pay annual salaries and compensation benefits for the individuals. As soon as the best solution was chosen, the company only has to pay a reward and protect intellectual property rights. In the long term, reference to ideagoras to solve the problems is a less costly way.
Finally with the help of ideagoras the company can receive thousand of solutions in a very limited period of time. Imagine: thousand of individuals are thinking about the problem, employing available resources to solve the problem and they make it ultimately faster.
Overall, the key benefits are clear: ability to reach set of diverse, talented individuals form different areas of expertise and get hundreds of ideas faster and at a lower cost.
Disadvantages for companies.
1. The problem might go unnoticed by the community of solvers. Even though the company posts the problem, it might happen that nobody is able or willing to solve it.
2. It is not a fact that the solution proposed by “solvers” will be better than the possible solution of company’s R&D department.
3. How do the company should measure the reward for the successful solution? How to ensure that the reward do not outweigh the actual value of the proposed solution? So the issue of accurate setting of rewards may be problematic.
Advantages for individuals.
One of advantages for individuals that they can utilize their talent and solve a complex problem, benefiting the company and sometimes even society in general. The ideagoras help individuals to fulfill one of the last needs of Maslow’ hierarchy of needs – need for achievement.
Next, the financial reward is an advantage for individuals. The successful “solver” in InnoCentive can receive up to one million dollars as a reward.
Further, one of potential advantage for individuals is that they can join a community of the most talented people in the world. The interaction with them, especially while solving a problem, can contribute to one’s development and inspire continuous flow of personal innovative ideas.
Furthermore, often creative people cannot work in bureaucratic conditions (“eight-to-five” working day) of large organizations, as creative individuals seek for more freedom. Ideagoras allow these people to be freelancers and live their own schedule.
Disadvantages for individuals.
A solution for, say, Procter&Gamble’s problem can yield the company millions of dollars in revenue. Therefore, some 50,000 dollars in reward for a person who solved the problem looks really miserable. The disadvantage is that the person might not be rewarded accordingly.
The protection of identity might be a disadvantage as well. A successful “solver” might never get personal credentials for his/her work.
What’s more, there can be potential disadvantages concerning intellectual property rights. The ideagoras require individuals to transfer intellectual property rights for the winning idea to the company. Again the company can turn the idea into profitable patents, trademarks and new inventions and generate profit, while the author will have only a fraction from these profits as a reward for his/her idea.
Moreover, consider the following situation: the company initially “rejects” the proposed solution, but in Reality Company’s R&D department start working over it, introduce few modifications and claim that the solution was entirely developed in the company’s labs. There is a possibility that a company can start to play unfair in regard to community of creative people.
Conclusion.
From my point of view, ideagoras is not entirely new concept. For example, a company could have an organization-wide intranet, where problems could be posted and solutions from all people in organization gathered. However, the scale of ideagoras is worldwide, thanks to the Internet.
Initially, ideagoras were designed for individuals to work over challenging assignments; currently, there is a trend that ideagoras help to link together not only companies and individuals but also individuals and individuals, i.e. allowing people to organize into virtual or real groups and collaborate over a problem. So, being a solver might be now not only an individual pursuit, but rather teamwork.
Ideagoras are sometimes associated with eBay for innovative solutions: somebody sell, somebody buy the solution. Taking into account that there is always huge amount of complicated problems and there are people with desire and expertise solve problems, ideagoras, when properly designed and marketed, can be very viable business models, as they suit the Internet perfectly – ideagoras are simply middleman, a virtual platform.
Sunday, 3 May 2009
Sunday, 26 April 2009
Privacy Policies
This is about Facebook Principles. Facebook is free access social networking website. It is Privately owned and was founded in February 4, 2004 in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The revenue of Faceboook was about 300 million USD in 2008.
These principles have been effective since November 26, 2008. Facebook is popular among people because it is good place to share information and keep up with friends. It is hard to say how many people have Facebook account but it is definitely in millions.
Facebook has two core principles; you should have control over your personal information and you should have access to the information others want to share. This means that Facebook helps people to share information with friends. Everybody can freely choose the information in his or her profile. Sharing information should be easy.
The policies include sections like; EU Safe Harbor Participation, The Information We Collect, Use of Information Obtained by Facebook, Sharing You Information with Third Parties, Security. Facebook is a licensee of the TRUSTe Privacy Program. After reading through the Policies some interesting facts came out. Facebook collects browser type and IP address from all users. They also store certain information from users browser by using cookies. Children under the age of 13 are not allowed to have Facebook account and Facebook does not want to have any connection with such a young people.
Facebook sais that Facebook Privacy Policy is designed to help you to understand how they collect and use the personal information people have decided to share. We have to say that these policies are not clear at all. After reading them through few times they still don’t make any sense. In the Facebook’s Privacy Policies, which is right after the Principles and the safe use of Facebook, they say that by using or accessing to Facebook you are accepting the practices described in this Privacy Policy. They know that hardly anyone will read those policies and naturally they want to make sure that these policies do concern everyone, also the ones that has not read the policies.
In 2008 Facebook announced that from there on they would own all the pictures that the users upload. However, the users of Facebook did not approve this matter and soon after announcement Facebook decided to take back the old principle.
The second site which we decided to take for our investigation is Microsoft. Naturally, millions of people around the world use Hotmail accounts, MSN instant messaging and other products of Microsoft. Therefore, it is important to understand privacy policy of Microsoft, as it concerns a large chunk of Internet users.
The privacy policy was updated in May 2008. The full version contains 15 headlines, including such issues as: Collection, Use and Sharing of Personal Information, Display of Advertising, Use of Cookies and Web Beakons and, finally, Changes to the Privacy Statement and contact information.
In general, all the headlines correspond to three main topics: Personal Information, Use of Information and Your Choices.
Personal information sections deal with collection and representation of users’ personal information. Microsoft admits it use cookies for users’ convenience. Interestingly, there is a section about Web Beakons, which is used mostly for collection of statistics, i.e. how many users visited certain pages. Furthermore, these “invisible gifs” can be included into promotional emails and newsletters. Microsoft also states that it can combine the collected personal information “with information obtained from other Microsoft services and other companies”. In other words, Microsoft reserves the right to create a complete profile of a user through employment of all affiliated web-sites and services. This statement leads u8s to think that, in fact, there is no privacy in the Internet at all.
“Use of Information” section highlights primarily how Microsoft can utilize the collected information. As usual, the company can inform about the products and services and send surveys. Microsoft assures users that it does not distribute any personal data to other companies. However, Microsoft can create assumingly “personalized” advertisements basing on the information users provide. In doing so, the company insert persistent cookie to user’s web browser to be able to identify which advertisements this particular user saw and subsequent users’ behaviour, as clicking on the ad.
The “Your Choice” section educate users how to make communication preferences. We found out the section quite useful, as it states how to opt-out from Display of Advertising, stop delivery of newsletters, for example.
All in all,
1. Privacy policy typically have information about the personal data which sites collect; usage, distribution and (un)disclosure of personal information to third parties or affiliated companies. Further, privacy policy has information about security (where emphasis is that customers are responsible for their own security) and age limits. Moreover, privacy policies have quite exte3nsive explanations of usage of cookies and other technical means to control users’ behaviour. The positive point is that privacy policies typically contain links to personal settings, when users can configure their preferences and thus strengthen personal privacy.
2. The obvious difference in privacy policies of two selected companies is the collection of IP addresses by Facebook. MSN, at least, do not have any statements about IP addresses. Facebook might collect IP addresses for extra security and to identify users in investigation if privacy policies were violated. However, in general, privacy policies are practically the same. The similarity of privacy policies is clear, because both sites operate as means of communication in the Internet and they face the same legal challenges. However, Facebook core’s principle of control over personal information by users themselves is states much clearer than in MSN’s policy. Again the explanation is that users share much more might-be confidential information, as photos and videos. It was interesting to know, that both Facebook and Microsoft are licensees of TRUSTe Privacy Programs.
3. We do no think the policies are clear to users. First of all, they are quite lengthy and require at least several attempts to read through them before you start understand the major points. Besides, the scope of privacy policies is very broad as they aim to cover all major aspects. Moreover, it requires users to have some basic knowledge about cookies, security (SSL) to understand technical specifications. From our subjective opinion, these policies are created with the company in mind, not with regard to users. It seems like the policies are too ambiguous and can be interpreted very freely, always to the benefit of the companies. Also, it might happen that the majority of users get frustrated with the length of the policies and do not read them to the end, so it might be easy to hide important information about usage of personal information, for instance.
Our suggestion that the policies should be written in more precise language and should strike the right balance between details and general information.
These principles have been effective since November 26, 2008. Facebook is popular among people because it is good place to share information and keep up with friends. It is hard to say how many people have Facebook account but it is definitely in millions.
Facebook has two core principles; you should have control over your personal information and you should have access to the information others want to share. This means that Facebook helps people to share information with friends. Everybody can freely choose the information in his or her profile. Sharing information should be easy.
The policies include sections like; EU Safe Harbor Participation, The Information We Collect, Use of Information Obtained by Facebook, Sharing You Information with Third Parties, Security. Facebook is a licensee of the TRUSTe Privacy Program. After reading through the Policies some interesting facts came out. Facebook collects browser type and IP address from all users. They also store certain information from users browser by using cookies. Children under the age of 13 are not allowed to have Facebook account and Facebook does not want to have any connection with such a young people.
Facebook sais that Facebook Privacy Policy is designed to help you to understand how they collect and use the personal information people have decided to share. We have to say that these policies are not clear at all. After reading them through few times they still don’t make any sense. In the Facebook’s Privacy Policies, which is right after the Principles and the safe use of Facebook, they say that by using or accessing to Facebook you are accepting the practices described in this Privacy Policy. They know that hardly anyone will read those policies and naturally they want to make sure that these policies do concern everyone, also the ones that has not read the policies.
In 2008 Facebook announced that from there on they would own all the pictures that the users upload. However, the users of Facebook did not approve this matter and soon after announcement Facebook decided to take back the old principle.
The second site which we decided to take for our investigation is Microsoft. Naturally, millions of people around the world use Hotmail accounts, MSN instant messaging and other products of Microsoft. Therefore, it is important to understand privacy policy of Microsoft, as it concerns a large chunk of Internet users.
The privacy policy was updated in May 2008. The full version contains 15 headlines, including such issues as: Collection, Use and Sharing of Personal Information, Display of Advertising, Use of Cookies and Web Beakons and, finally, Changes to the Privacy Statement and contact information.
In general, all the headlines correspond to three main topics: Personal Information, Use of Information and Your Choices.
Personal information sections deal with collection and representation of users’ personal information. Microsoft admits it use cookies for users’ convenience. Interestingly, there is a section about Web Beakons, which is used mostly for collection of statistics, i.e. how many users visited certain pages. Furthermore, these “invisible gifs” can be included into promotional emails and newsletters. Microsoft also states that it can combine the collected personal information “with information obtained from other Microsoft services and other companies”. In other words, Microsoft reserves the right to create a complete profile of a user through employment of all affiliated web-sites and services. This statement leads u8s to think that, in fact, there is no privacy in the Internet at all.
“Use of Information” section highlights primarily how Microsoft can utilize the collected information. As usual, the company can inform about the products and services and send surveys. Microsoft assures users that it does not distribute any personal data to other companies. However, Microsoft can create assumingly “personalized” advertisements basing on the information users provide. In doing so, the company insert persistent cookie to user’s web browser to be able to identify which advertisements this particular user saw and subsequent users’ behaviour, as clicking on the ad.
The “Your Choice” section educate users how to make communication preferences. We found out the section quite useful, as it states how to opt-out from Display of Advertising, stop delivery of newsletters, for example.
All in all,
1. Privacy policy typically have information about the personal data which sites collect; usage, distribution and (un)disclosure of personal information to third parties or affiliated companies. Further, privacy policy has information about security (where emphasis is that customers are responsible for their own security) and age limits. Moreover, privacy policies have quite exte3nsive explanations of usage of cookies and other technical means to control users’ behaviour. The positive point is that privacy policies typically contain links to personal settings, when users can configure their preferences and thus strengthen personal privacy.
2. The obvious difference in privacy policies of two selected companies is the collection of IP addresses by Facebook. MSN, at least, do not have any statements about IP addresses. Facebook might collect IP addresses for extra security and to identify users in investigation if privacy policies were violated. However, in general, privacy policies are practically the same. The similarity of privacy policies is clear, because both sites operate as means of communication in the Internet and they face the same legal challenges. However, Facebook core’s principle of control over personal information by users themselves is states much clearer than in MSN’s policy. Again the explanation is that users share much more might-be confidential information, as photos and videos. It was interesting to know, that both Facebook and Microsoft are licensees of TRUSTe Privacy Programs.
3. We do no think the policies are clear to users. First of all, they are quite lengthy and require at least several attempts to read through them before you start understand the major points. Besides, the scope of privacy policies is very broad as they aim to cover all major aspects. Moreover, it requires users to have some basic knowledge about cookies, security (SSL) to understand technical specifications. From our subjective opinion, these policies are created with the company in mind, not with regard to users. It seems like the policies are too ambiguous and can be interpreted very freely, always to the benefit of the companies. Also, it might happen that the majority of users get frustrated with the length of the policies and do not read them to the end, so it might be easy to hide important information about usage of personal information, for instance.
Our suggestion that the policies should be written in more precise language and should strike the right balance between details and general information.
Sunday, 19 April 2009
Digital divide
Digital Divide becomes a new topic for discussions in society and even a target for political actions, when the UK introduces seven-point plan to tackle the issue. Digital Device refers to the fact that not everyone in this globe has the ability to benefit from the new economy and society, increasingly relying on the Internet to perform various transactions and use the WWW as primary source of information. The world’s population does not have equal opportunities when it comes to Computer and Internet access. Firstly it is because of economical situation of many countries. Some people might not have enough money to buy computer even after 20 years. Technology has gone a long way and the cheapest computers aren’t really that expensive nowadays. I think that it is possible to buy new or a bit used computer with few hundred euros, here in Finland. However, we must understand that poor people in the world are more than poor in the Finnish scale. Therefore, no poor family would buy computer and it would not make any sense to buy one. It is sad to say that not everyone can buy computer but that is the reality. Companies cannot start to give them away for free.
One factor that divides people into two on computer usage is the Usability Divide. Some people could not even use computer even if they had one. They might not have electricity of they cannot read. The literacy rate of the whole population is about 40% meaning that they cannot read of not too well. This is a huge obstacle for people who would like to use computer and access to Internet. The necessary service for Internet connection does not have global reach.
One more factor that divides people in this matter is Empowerment Divide. Computers and Internet are not easy to use and cannot be used without some basic knowledge. It is not possible to offer this knowledge to everyone. Indeed, if we imagine that everyone is possesing the broadband connection, the digital divide is here to stay. In order to exploit the full advantages the Internet bring, users have to posses not only basic literacy skills, but understand the possibilities the Internet brings. Consider farmers of handicrafts in, for example, African countries. Let’s imagine they have the high-speed Internet connection. In theory, the Internet connection will be extremely beneficial for them, as they can sell their products via the Internet, possibly to other countries. Even more, they – in theory – can explore their field of business deeply thought the Internet resources. However, in reality, these farmers will require a comprehensive training to perform basic operations, not to mention starting of the international business.
Overall, there are several reasons which cause digital divide. The first one is obvious: lack of technology due to disadvantageous geographical location of the region, overall poor economic development of the country, lack of financial resources to establish broadband connection in the region. In the case of pure technological problem of digital divide, the government should definitely intervene. The government can subsidise establishment of broadband connection in the areas which can be unprofitable due to low population rate, e.g. suburbs of towns or agricultural areas. Clearly, without subsides, the Internet providers will never establish broadband connections in unprofitable areas.
Similarly, there is a financial reason, when certain groups of consumers cannot afford to buy computers. It is very weak reason, as currently computers’ prices go down and virtually all can afford to buy at least netbook and the cheapest Internet connection, through, for example, saving money a period of time. However, in order to use the Internet and especially execute any financial transaction, users need credit/debit card. Here is yet another reason of digital divide: credit card and bank account. The possession of credit card clearly separates the whole population which uses the Internet. And the haves enjoy the benefits of the Internet, while the have-nots can use the Internet as the digital source of information. Moreover, continuing the idea with credit card, the level of income is the reason for digital divide. Customers with high income can have premium paid access to say, business journals and databases. In our knowledge-based society, those who posses better knowledge, especially in business, are ultimately winning over those who do not have access to “knowledge”.
Next cause of digital divide is usability. Sometimes people can not use the Internet due to very low literacy rate. Although, in order to exploit the greatest benefits of the Internet, the users have to have adequate knowledge of English language, as the most beneficial sites are in English or other major European languages. This problem concerns developing countries and could be solved only through significant changes in society. Sooner or later, the majority of developing countries will reach such level of economical development, when the major share of households will be able to afford high-speed Internet connection. Still, the underling problem is the society issues in countries where population lack comprehensive school education.
Finally, even though we eliminate the reasons of digital divide, there is still empowerment divide, when better-educated people can have an advantage over those, who does not posses knowledge. Naturally, people with higher education in the area of business can much more easily start business through the Internet, in comparison with those who posses only basic education. Unfortunately, even though we have broadband connection all over the world, people would use it differently and get the benefit of WWW unequally, because of difference in education, knowledge and financial resources available
To conclude, it is often said that Internet access should be a universal right. We think it should be that way. United Nations has done some work in order to make Internet as basic Human Right. Two countries in EU have already made Internet as Human Right in their country, Greece and Estonia. We think others should follow. We do not mean that they should just say that it is a Human Right. Countries should make sure that Internet is available cross the nations and everyone can have access to it. Of course it should be free of charge just that everyone could have the opportunity to have it.
To conclude, the Digital Divide includes the following issues, which simultaneously cause the Divide itself: technological divide (availability of computers and broadband connections, financial divide (level of income, possession of credit card), usability divide (whether people are trained to use computers properly) and empowerment divide (meaning that individuals can get different benefits from the Internet, depending on their education level). That means, digital divide will not transfer into “Digital Equality” in the nearest future.
Digital Divide becomes a new topic for discussions in society and even a target for political actions, when the UK introduces seven-point plan to tackle the issue. Digital Device refers to the fact that not everyone in this globe has the ability to benefit from the new economy and society, increasingly relying on the Internet to perform various transactions and use the WWW as primary source of information. The world’s population does not have equal opportunities when it comes to Computer and Internet access. Firstly it is because of economical situation of many countries. Some people might not have enough money to buy computer even after 20 years. Technology has gone a long way and the cheapest computers aren’t really that expensive nowadays. I think that it is possible to buy new or a bit used computer with few hundred euros, here in Finland. However, we must understand that poor people in the world are more than poor in the Finnish scale. Therefore, no poor family would buy computer and it would not make any sense to buy one. It is sad to say that not everyone can buy computer but that is the reality. Companies cannot start to give them away for free.
One factor that divides people into two on computer usage is the Usability Divide. Some people could not even use computer even if they had one. They might not have electricity of they cannot read. The literacy rate of the whole population is about 40% meaning that they cannot read of not too well. This is a huge obstacle for people who would like to use computer and access to Internet. The necessary service for Internet connection does not have global reach.
One more factor that divides people in this matter is Empowerment Divide. Computers and Internet are not easy to use and cannot be used without some basic knowledge. It is not possible to offer this knowledge to everyone. Indeed, if we imagine that everyone is possesing the broadband connection, the digital divide is here to stay. In order to exploit the full advantages the Internet bring, users have to posses not only basic literacy skills, but understand the possibilities the Internet brings. Consider farmers of handicrafts in, for example, African countries. Let’s imagine they have the high-speed Internet connection. In theory, the Internet connection will be extremely beneficial for them, as they can sell their products via the Internet, possibly to other countries. Even more, they – in theory – can explore their field of business deeply thought the Internet resources. However, in reality, these farmers will require a comprehensive training to perform basic operations, not to mention starting of the international business.
Overall, there are several reasons which cause digital divide. The first one is obvious: lack of technology due to disadvantageous geographical location of the region, overall poor economic development of the country, lack of financial resources to establish broadband connection in the region. In the case of pure technological problem of digital divide, the government should definitely intervene. The government can subsidise establishment of broadband connection in the areas which can be unprofitable due to low population rate, e.g. suburbs of towns or agricultural areas. Clearly, without subsides, the Internet providers will never establish broadband connections in unprofitable areas.
Similarly, there is a financial reason, when certain groups of consumers cannot afford to buy computers. It is very weak reason, as currently computers’ prices go down and virtually all can afford to buy at least netbook and the cheapest Internet connection, through, for example, saving money a period of time. However, in order to use the Internet and especially execute any financial transaction, users need credit/debit card. Here is yet another reason of digital divide: credit card and bank account. The possession of credit card clearly separates the whole population which uses the Internet. And the haves enjoy the benefits of the Internet, while the have-nots can use the Internet as the digital source of information. Moreover, continuing the idea with credit card, the level of income is the reason for digital divide. Customers with high income can have premium paid access to say, business journals and databases. In our knowledge-based society, those who posses better knowledge, especially in business, are ultimately winning over those who do not have access to “knowledge”.
Next cause of digital divide is usability. Sometimes people can not use the Internet due to very low literacy rate. Although, in order to exploit the greatest benefits of the Internet, the users have to have adequate knowledge of English language, as the most beneficial sites are in English or other major European languages. This problem concerns developing countries and could be solved only through significant changes in society. Sooner or later, the majority of developing countries will reach such level of economical development, when the major share of households will be able to afford high-speed Internet connection. Still, the underling problem is the society issues in countries where population lack comprehensive school education.
Finally, even though we eliminate the reasons of digital divide, there is still empowerment divide, when better-educated people can have an advantage over those, who does not posses knowledge. Naturally, people with higher education in the area of business can much more easily start business through the Internet, in comparison with those who posses only basic education. Unfortunately, even though we have broadband connection all over the world, people would use it differently and get the benefit of WWW unequally, because of difference in education, knowledge and financial resources available
To conclude, it is often said that Internet access should be a universal right. We think it should be that way. United Nations has done some work in order to make Internet as basic Human Right. Two countries in EU have already made Internet as Human Right in their country, Greece and Estonia. We think others should follow. We do not mean that they should just say that it is a Human Right. Countries should make sure that Internet is available cross the nations and everyone can have access to it. Of course it should be free of charge just that everyone could have the opportunity to have it.
To conclude, the Digital Divide includes the following issues, which simultaneously cause the Divide itself: technological divide (availability of computers and broadband connections, financial divide (level of income, possession of credit card), usability divide (whether people are trained to use computers properly) and empowerment divide (meaning that individuals can get different benefits from the Internet, depending on their education level). That means, digital divide will not transfer into “Digital Equality” in the nearest future.
Sunday, 12 April 2009
Intro
This blogpost is dedicated to two case studies, one about a famous hacker and another about a famous virus. Nowadays, as the Internet constantly evolves and so does the technological solutions around it, hackers and virus writers has a huge arsenal of methods for illegal penetration, steal of sensitive info or damage of severe damage of single computers or computer networks. Needless to say, such things as “evil twins” present a great security threat.
We, however, would like to step several years back and make our short research about “the pioneers”, the people who were among the first to start hacking and spreading of viruses. As it usually mentioned, we can learn a lot from history. And one thing that we can learn from history of Internet viruses and hackers is that sooner or later the individuals behind this illegal activities will be identified and punished by law enforcement agencies. Hackers and virus writers do leave “electronic fingerprints” in cyberspace, and they can be identified in contrast to the opinion that the Internet is absolutely anonymous.
Hacker
There are two types of Hackers, white and black hats. The white hat hackers are the ones that use their knowledge to help others. They can for example help companies to identify problems in their security. Black hat hackers are the total opposite. They use their knowledge to harm people. Targets can be individual person whose email or bank system has been hacked. Targets can also be companies that will loose money or some important information. These black hat hackers are the ones to expose companies to enormous danger and financial losses. I believe that white hat hackers are a good thing, meaning the ones that are actually honest, and that they are doing a huge favour for many companies. However, in many cases black hat hackers are lot more famous and it is much more interesting to write about them.
Jonathan James is famous because he was the first juvenile incarcerated for cyber crime in US. Jonathan was American citizen who was only 15 years old at the time of his first offence and 16 at the time of his conviction. Jonathan died in 2008. Shortly before his death Jonathan confessed he learnt his lesson and he was thinking about establishing own Internet security firm. The details about his dead have been kept away from the public. However, it has been speculated that he committed a suicide. He was only 24 at the time of his dead.
So what is it that he made?
He started with intrusions to various systems like Miami-Dade school systems. This brought him to attention of federal authorities. However, his intrusion into the computers of Defence Threat Reduction Agency made him a potential threat to USA. Defence Threat Reduction Agency, DTRA, is a division of United States Department of Defence. The purpose of DTRA is to analyze potential threats both at abroad and inside US territory.
James said that he installed a backdoor into the computer server that is located in Dulles, Virginia. Naturally he was unauthorized to do such thing. With “backdoor” hackers can bypass the normal authentication and that way get access to information. After this he installed a sniffer. Sniffer is programme that observe data moving in a network. Sometimes these “sniffers” are used to discover problems in networks, so for very legal pupose; however they can be used for illegal purpose as well and sniffers are usually hard to detect.This gave him the chance to monitor the traffic in the server including messages to and from DTRA employees. Furthermore, he got access to usernames and passwords of the DTRA employees; this also included at least ten official military computers. After Jonathans intrusion was spotted it was necessary that NASA, the National Aeronautics and space administration, which is also an agency of US government, shuts down all its computers for three weeks. It cost $ 41,000 for them to check and fix the systems. All of this happened in the late 1999, between August and October.
Agent from Department of Defence, NASA and local police raided the house of James in January 2000. After six months he was charged. Later on he had an agreement that he would plead guilty to two matters of juvenile delinquency and he would get lenient sentence in exchange. James was sentenced to six months in prison, and got probation until he would be 18. He was also required to write a letter of apology to NASA and the Department of Defence. Furthermore, he was banned from using computer for recreational purposes. However, later the judge reversed her decision and allowed James to serve six months under house arrest, with probation until age of twenty one. Later James violated the probation and was then take into custody and flown to federal correctional facility, where he served his six months.
Legal experts have said that in case he would of being adult he would have served at least ten years. The case was sealed due to the age of James. The specific details of his actions are unclear. However, it is believed that he used “nmap” port scan and scanned host for some of unknown fault in several of Sun Microsystem’s remote procedure call services. (Wikipedia). He made such efforts in order to gain unauthorized access to the computer systems.
Due to our limited knowledge on this technical area it is bit hard to truly understand what happened. However, I can understand that intrusion into system like Department of Defence is a major security risk. Intrusions to this kind of system, or any system in that that matter should not be allowed and therefore, should be heavily punished.
The funniest thing in the sad story that Jonathan made it for fun, just to challenge his own technical abilities. He was quite successful, as he not only get an unothorised access but also he also copied NASA’s software worth of 1.7 million dollars. And he did it for the purpose of improving his knowledge in C-programming. During the trial period he mentioned: “The code itself was crappy... certainly not worth of 1.7 million like they clamed”. J
References
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_James
http://www.itsecurity.com/features/top-10-famous-hackers-042407/
http://www.hackronomicon.com/?page_id=30
http://computer.howstuffworks.com/hacker4.htm
Virus
One of the most well-known viruses in the Internet is called Melissa. March 2009 is the 10th anniversary of the virus, as it first appeared in March of 1999.
How it works?
Here are our suggestions how the virus worked. A user receives an email with subject line “Important Message from (name of infected user)”. In fact, at the same time, other 49 first contacts from the infected user’s contact list receive the same email. The body of the message read as “Here is the document you for…” and message contained attachment called LIST.DOC. As the email is coming from the person you know, the subject line looks innocent and, to get the matter worse, you really expect a document, you will probably open the file. (The file contains around 80 links to X-rated websites). As soon as the file is opened, a macro inside the document emails it to another 50 people in your address book. After that the virus would infect other documents. Unlike viruses like Chernobyl that erase the first megabyte of data on a hard disk, the Melissa virus did not cause a huge damage for computers. Besides forwarding itself to contact from contact list, the virus inserted some quotations from “The Simpsons” TV Series. However, according to Wikipedia.org’ article about Melissa, some of virus’s later version try to delete critical information from the computer (Melissa.U).
Melissa is considered to be a “virus” as it required additional software to be active; in this case Melissa required MS Word. Also, sometimes Melissa is called as “Macro virus” as in fact it required a macro programme to send itself to contact in the contact list. Thus, as Melissa was spreading from computers to computers, it was a worm.
What were the consequences?
The viruses before Melissa were even more dangerous, but the all have a problem of spreading around, especially on the large scale. That time, viruses spread via floppy disks, or infecting the Office documents at the same computer. Therefore, the coverage was quit insignificant. Melissa was the first fastest-spreading malicious code. During few days, thousand of computers around the world were infected. Large companies, like Microsoft and Intel, reported that they recognized the viruses in their computers and Microsoft exchange databases. Microsoft, for example, was forced to shut down its outgoing email service aiming to stop the spread of the virus. Clearly, business operations/ activties were affected.
Also, the major problem was that in some organizations email servers were overloaded with outgoing email (each infected computer sends 50 email at the same time. Consider the fact that there are hundreds of PCs in large organizations).
Even though the peak of virus existence lasted for several days, until large antivirus software companies issued update to combat the virus, the virus were present around the world for a long period of time (because it spreaded very fast). According to BBC article, virus infected more than 1 000 000 computers and the damage totaled in 80 million dollars.
Also, the problem with that virus was that it infected Word’s normal.dot template. That means, every new document created by an infected computer contained macro that sends the document via email. Thus confidential information could be leaked to other parties with any notice to a computer owner. Overall, the damage is repre3sented by negative effects on business activities, infected Word documents, and possible lost of confidential info.
Who was the creator and what happened to him?
David Smith (New Jersey) created the Melissa, which he named after a stripper dancer in Florida. The creator called himself as a Kwyjibo. Initially, the virus was not designed to cause harm. Likewise, there was not any material gain for the creator (the virus did not steal passwords, credit card info or other sensitive and lucrative data). The fact again confirms assumption that early version of viruses were made just for fun by computer genius, for the sake of excitement when the whole world is concerned with what the virus writer has accomplished. However, due to overload of email servers, it did cause harm.
David Smith was found by police in April 1999, the week after the virus started to spread. It was relatively easy to identify the author, as the virus started to spread from Usenet discussion group called alt.sex. Computer technicians, FBI and police coordinated their efforts and were able to track down the IP address of the user who posted the infected zipped file to discussion board. CNET article contains details of the procedure which took place to identify David Smith: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-10206275-83.html
He faced 20 months in jail, fine of 5,000 dollars and order to stay away of computer networks. The sentence could have been stricter terms; however, Smith was assisting authorities during the interrogation process. Smith confessed that the creation of virus was a “colossal mistake”.
What can we learn from the both cases?
As the conclusion, let’s see what we can learn from the two different cases.
First of all, very often bad things in the Internet used to originate from “computer genus” that did not aim at material gain, but wanted either challenge theirselves through difficult task of cracking the servers of an organization or achieve fame as a creator of ever-fastest viruses. Sadly, that most of computer hackers and virus writers are outstanding computer specialists and they could use their talent to contribute to society through creation of useful computer programmes and earn money in a very legal way.
Nowadays, however, the creation of malware is considered to be a source of getting money. Indeed, big bucks are involved in computer malware and articles in the Internet sometimes cite “a business model for malware” (of course, illegal business model).
Some people believe that the Internet as a “virtual reality” differs completely from our usual, physical reality. Therefore, crimes performed in the Internet does not equal to crimes in the real world (stealing banking passwords is not the same as stealing wallet from a pocket of a man at the street. However, crime is crime both in real world and the digital one. And both cases illustrate that sooner or later the digital crime will be seriously punished.
Second of all, the Melissa virus actually pioneered the fast worldwide expansion of malicious codes via emails.
Third of all, a lot of viruses can be prevented through with few actions educated users must undertake:
1) Do not open received email attachments without scanning them with good antivirus software
2) If you do not expect an email letter form a friend/colleague and then you receive email with subject line saying something like “Important info you asked”, it’s better to call the person before opening and ask whether he/she actually sent the email.
These simple rules can diminish likelihood that you will get a self-propagating virus, like Melissa.
Resources:
http://www.f-secure.com/v-descs/melissa.shtml (F-Secure Virus Descriptions : Melissa)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melissa_virus
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Security/10-Years-With-Melissa-the-Worm-That-Changed-the-World/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1963371.stm
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-10206275-83.html
http://news.cnet.com/Melissa-virus-spreads-in-Internet-time/2100-1023_3-223648.html?tag=mncol;txt
http://computer.howstuffworks.com/worst-computer-viruses.htm
This blogpost is dedicated to two case studies, one about a famous hacker and another about a famous virus. Nowadays, as the Internet constantly evolves and so does the technological solutions around it, hackers and virus writers has a huge arsenal of methods for illegal penetration, steal of sensitive info or damage of severe damage of single computers or computer networks. Needless to say, such things as “evil twins” present a great security threat.
We, however, would like to step several years back and make our short research about “the pioneers”, the people who were among the first to start hacking and spreading of viruses. As it usually mentioned, we can learn a lot from history. And one thing that we can learn from history of Internet viruses and hackers is that sooner or later the individuals behind this illegal activities will be identified and punished by law enforcement agencies. Hackers and virus writers do leave “electronic fingerprints” in cyberspace, and they can be identified in contrast to the opinion that the Internet is absolutely anonymous.
Hacker
There are two types of Hackers, white and black hats. The white hat hackers are the ones that use their knowledge to help others. They can for example help companies to identify problems in their security. Black hat hackers are the total opposite. They use their knowledge to harm people. Targets can be individual person whose email or bank system has been hacked. Targets can also be companies that will loose money or some important information. These black hat hackers are the ones to expose companies to enormous danger and financial losses. I believe that white hat hackers are a good thing, meaning the ones that are actually honest, and that they are doing a huge favour for many companies. However, in many cases black hat hackers are lot more famous and it is much more interesting to write about them.
Jonathan James is famous because he was the first juvenile incarcerated for cyber crime in US. Jonathan was American citizen who was only 15 years old at the time of his first offence and 16 at the time of his conviction. Jonathan died in 2008. Shortly before his death Jonathan confessed he learnt his lesson and he was thinking about establishing own Internet security firm. The details about his dead have been kept away from the public. However, it has been speculated that he committed a suicide. He was only 24 at the time of his dead.
So what is it that he made?
He started with intrusions to various systems like Miami-Dade school systems. This brought him to attention of federal authorities. However, his intrusion into the computers of Defence Threat Reduction Agency made him a potential threat to USA. Defence Threat Reduction Agency, DTRA, is a division of United States Department of Defence. The purpose of DTRA is to analyze potential threats both at abroad and inside US territory.
James said that he installed a backdoor into the computer server that is located in Dulles, Virginia. Naturally he was unauthorized to do such thing. With “backdoor” hackers can bypass the normal authentication and that way get access to information. After this he installed a sniffer. Sniffer is programme that observe data moving in a network. Sometimes these “sniffers” are used to discover problems in networks, so for very legal pupose; however they can be used for illegal purpose as well and sniffers are usually hard to detect.This gave him the chance to monitor the traffic in the server including messages to and from DTRA employees. Furthermore, he got access to usernames and passwords of the DTRA employees; this also included at least ten official military computers. After Jonathans intrusion was spotted it was necessary that NASA, the National Aeronautics and space administration, which is also an agency of US government, shuts down all its computers for three weeks. It cost $ 41,000 for them to check and fix the systems. All of this happened in the late 1999, between August and October.
Agent from Department of Defence, NASA and local police raided the house of James in January 2000. After six months he was charged. Later on he had an agreement that he would plead guilty to two matters of juvenile delinquency and he would get lenient sentence in exchange. James was sentenced to six months in prison, and got probation until he would be 18. He was also required to write a letter of apology to NASA and the Department of Defence. Furthermore, he was banned from using computer for recreational purposes. However, later the judge reversed her decision and allowed James to serve six months under house arrest, with probation until age of twenty one. Later James violated the probation and was then take into custody and flown to federal correctional facility, where he served his six months.
Legal experts have said that in case he would of being adult he would have served at least ten years. The case was sealed due to the age of James. The specific details of his actions are unclear. However, it is believed that he used “nmap” port scan and scanned host for some of unknown fault in several of Sun Microsystem’s remote procedure call services. (Wikipedia). He made such efforts in order to gain unauthorized access to the computer systems.
Due to our limited knowledge on this technical area it is bit hard to truly understand what happened. However, I can understand that intrusion into system like Department of Defence is a major security risk. Intrusions to this kind of system, or any system in that that matter should not be allowed and therefore, should be heavily punished.
The funniest thing in the sad story that Jonathan made it for fun, just to challenge his own technical abilities. He was quite successful, as he not only get an unothorised access but also he also copied NASA’s software worth of 1.7 million dollars. And he did it for the purpose of improving his knowledge in C-programming. During the trial period he mentioned: “The code itself was crappy... certainly not worth of 1.7 million like they clamed”. J
References
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_James
http://www.itsecurity.com/features/top-10-famous-hackers-042407/
http://www.hackronomicon.com/?page_id=30
http://computer.howstuffworks.com/hacker4.htm
Virus
One of the most well-known viruses in the Internet is called Melissa. March 2009 is the 10th anniversary of the virus, as it first appeared in March of 1999.
How it works?
Here are our suggestions how the virus worked. A user receives an email with subject line “Important Message from (name of infected user)”. In fact, at the same time, other 49 first contacts from the infected user’s contact list receive the same email. The body of the message read as “Here is the document you for…” and message contained attachment called LIST.DOC. As the email is coming from the person you know, the subject line looks innocent and, to get the matter worse, you really expect a document, you will probably open the file. (The file contains around 80 links to X-rated websites). As soon as the file is opened, a macro inside the document emails it to another 50 people in your address book. After that the virus would infect other documents. Unlike viruses like Chernobyl that erase the first megabyte of data on a hard disk, the Melissa virus did not cause a huge damage for computers. Besides forwarding itself to contact from contact list, the virus inserted some quotations from “The Simpsons” TV Series. However, according to Wikipedia.org’ article about Melissa, some of virus’s later version try to delete critical information from the computer (Melissa.U).
Melissa is considered to be a “virus” as it required additional software to be active; in this case Melissa required MS Word. Also, sometimes Melissa is called as “Macro virus” as in fact it required a macro programme to send itself to contact in the contact list. Thus, as Melissa was spreading from computers to computers, it was a worm.
What were the consequences?
The viruses before Melissa were even more dangerous, but the all have a problem of spreading around, especially on the large scale. That time, viruses spread via floppy disks, or infecting the Office documents at the same computer. Therefore, the coverage was quit insignificant. Melissa was the first fastest-spreading malicious code. During few days, thousand of computers around the world were infected. Large companies, like Microsoft and Intel, reported that they recognized the viruses in their computers and Microsoft exchange databases. Microsoft, for example, was forced to shut down its outgoing email service aiming to stop the spread of the virus. Clearly, business operations/ activties were affected.
Also, the major problem was that in some organizations email servers were overloaded with outgoing email (each infected computer sends 50 email at the same time. Consider the fact that there are hundreds of PCs in large organizations).
Even though the peak of virus existence lasted for several days, until large antivirus software companies issued update to combat the virus, the virus were present around the world for a long period of time (because it spreaded very fast). According to BBC article, virus infected more than 1 000 000 computers and the damage totaled in 80 million dollars.
Also, the problem with that virus was that it infected Word’s normal.dot template. That means, every new document created by an infected computer contained macro that sends the document via email. Thus confidential information could be leaked to other parties with any notice to a computer owner. Overall, the damage is repre3sented by negative effects on business activities, infected Word documents, and possible lost of confidential info.
Who was the creator and what happened to him?
David Smith (New Jersey) created the Melissa, which he named after a stripper dancer in Florida. The creator called himself as a Kwyjibo. Initially, the virus was not designed to cause harm. Likewise, there was not any material gain for the creator (the virus did not steal passwords, credit card info or other sensitive and lucrative data). The fact again confirms assumption that early version of viruses were made just for fun by computer genius, for the sake of excitement when the whole world is concerned with what the virus writer has accomplished. However, due to overload of email servers, it did cause harm.
David Smith was found by police in April 1999, the week after the virus started to spread. It was relatively easy to identify the author, as the virus started to spread from Usenet discussion group called alt.sex. Computer technicians, FBI and police coordinated their efforts and were able to track down the IP address of the user who posted the infected zipped file to discussion board. CNET article contains details of the procedure which took place to identify David Smith: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-10206275-83.html
He faced 20 months in jail, fine of 5,000 dollars and order to stay away of computer networks. The sentence could have been stricter terms; however, Smith was assisting authorities during the interrogation process. Smith confessed that the creation of virus was a “colossal mistake”.
What can we learn from the both cases?
As the conclusion, let’s see what we can learn from the two different cases.
First of all, very often bad things in the Internet used to originate from “computer genus” that did not aim at material gain, but wanted either challenge theirselves through difficult task of cracking the servers of an organization or achieve fame as a creator of ever-fastest viruses. Sadly, that most of computer hackers and virus writers are outstanding computer specialists and they could use their talent to contribute to society through creation of useful computer programmes and earn money in a very legal way.
Nowadays, however, the creation of malware is considered to be a source of getting money. Indeed, big bucks are involved in computer malware and articles in the Internet sometimes cite “a business model for malware” (of course, illegal business model).
Some people believe that the Internet as a “virtual reality” differs completely from our usual, physical reality. Therefore, crimes performed in the Internet does not equal to crimes in the real world (stealing banking passwords is not the same as stealing wallet from a pocket of a man at the street. However, crime is crime both in real world and the digital one. And both cases illustrate that sooner or later the digital crime will be seriously punished.
Second of all, the Melissa virus actually pioneered the fast worldwide expansion of malicious codes via emails.
Third of all, a lot of viruses can be prevented through with few actions educated users must undertake:
1) Do not open received email attachments without scanning them with good antivirus software
2) If you do not expect an email letter form a friend/colleague and then you receive email with subject line saying something like “Important info you asked”, it’s better to call the person before opening and ask whether he/she actually sent the email.
These simple rules can diminish likelihood that you will get a self-propagating virus, like Melissa.
Resources:
http://www.f-secure.com/v-descs/melissa.shtml (F-Secure Virus Descriptions : Melissa)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melissa_virus
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Security/10-Years-With-Melissa-the-Worm-That-Changed-the-World/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1963371.stm
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-10206275-83.html
http://news.cnet.com/Melissa-virus-spreads-in-Internet-time/2100-1023_3-223648.html?tag=mncol;txt
http://computer.howstuffworks.com/worst-computer-viruses.htm
Sunday, 5 April 2009
Introduction.
This post is dedicated to an overview of the US export restrictions of strong encryption systems. We present several arguments for the presence of such restrictions. After that, we analyse possible arguments of companies, individuals or event the whole countries for being against such export restrictions. Finally, we move to the highly controversial question, which is important for the future of the Internet: should the government control the Internet?
Reasons for export restrictions.
1. The first reason is obviously terrorist threat. The terrorist organizations may use strong encryption to plan and coordinate their operations. Therefore, it is vital task for the US (as well as other countries) to decrypt messages between terrorists in order to prevent catastrophes like 9/11 in the future. The only possible solution is to ban the export to countries, where terrorist can purchase the strong encryption systems. However, the problem is that terrorists organizations remain powerful and they can obtain such systems probably even in the USA through “fake” companies, for example.
2. The closely related reason is prevention of secret, coded correspondence among international criminal organizations and individuals. Assumingly, if there is a restriction, the large criminal organizations will not be able to make the correspondence secret enough.
3. No doubt, the USA wants to maintain the position of World’s superpower. Since Soviet Union times the USA was considered as only available protection against “USSR aggression”. The USSR has vanished, but the States still want to be perceived as guards of the whole world. So the only possible solution for preserving the leading role of superpower is to posses something which other countries cannot easily copy. Years ago it was nuclear bombs. Now, in the digital society, it is information that matters and especially methods how to protect sensitive information. Therefore, USA simply wants to be able to read messages of other individuals/organizations/countries, while being intact by others.
4. Business – related issues. Banning the export of strong encryption systems, the US government could have a possibility to “read” correspondence of suspicious multinational companies, e.g. business consortia for price discrimination (when large multinational companies agree on illegal actions, e.g. price discrimination and communicate via secured networks).
Why should be against it
Consider that the US government wants to restrict the export of strong encryption systems. This will lead to an unbalanced situation since no other country would have access to those valuable systems. Furthermore, major companies and expertises specialised in encryption are located in the USA. Just like Cisco system. Rest of the world will feel really unsatisfied and discriminated when US is the one to possess all the major information. In this way US can also keep their role as been the most powerful country in the world. Perhaps they want to be above others in some way. With strong encryption system US will be able to effectively “read” lot of sensitive information outside US, meanwhile others can’t decrypt the codes of USA. This can give huge competitive advance for companies located in US territory. The companies inside US can use strong encryptions to protect their sensitive information. However, companies in Europe for example do not have opportunity to use such an effective system to protect their sensitive information.
The fact that they do not want to export these systems will hurt them in some ways. The companies specialised in this field (of strong encryption) will definitely loose customers. USA is just one country and there definitely would be potential customers around the world. Furthermore, by loosing potential customers they will also loose potential profits. Naturally they do not want that these strong encryption systems would be available for every country. Some compromise should be made so that solution could be obtained. One of possible solution is to apply restrictions to limited number of countries such as North Korea and Afghanistan.
Should Government control the Internet?
This matter is not just black and white and is really hard to answer. This matter definitely divides people into sides. On the other hand china already has something related to this. They have build huge countrywide firewall. In this way they can monitor everything that goes out and more importantly everything that comes in.
Controlling Internet inside country is more difficult. However, some matters should be controlled, but who has the right to decide on that. Such things could be Copyright infringements and other legal issues. Distribution of guns, explosives and drugs is more serious issue. As it has been witnessed is US and also in Finland not everyone should have the access to guns. Shootings in places like schools could maybe be prevented in some cases.
Also issues that are potentially dangerous to the welfare and prosperity of the society. Specially matters concerning children should be taken seriously like child porn.
Goivernment of many countries (Cuba, Iran, China etc) are already controlling the Internet, cencoring the cyperspace for anti-government political statements. Also, despite common misunderstandings, the Internet is quite easy to contol (consider content blocking, nation-wide firewalls). Much of this control is targeted to suppress the opposition in totalitarian countires and prevent access to anti-government websites.
However, we believe that the main aim of the government should be the creation of a legal framework for the Internet. Those issues, that can endanger the welfare of society, such as illegal drug distribution, child pornography, weapons distribution sites should be considered as illegal and the correponding laws should be designed. However, fundamnetal rights of human beings, such as freedom of speech/expression should be still valid, and people should have the chance to present their opinions, even very critical ones.
We believe that unregulated Internet is like a powerful explosive with already running timer. Certain actions should be taken to control the Intenet even withinb the borders of a country throug creation of adequate legal framework. Importantly, the framework should be created in cooperation with many representatives of society, including governmnets, human rights advocates, lawyers, technical specialist and other individuals and organisations. Moreover, every government’s action toward the regulation of the Internet should be immediately made public, explained well and could be possible to protest and revoke in case of society’s disagreemnet.
The final thouhgt: the morale and values of a person are the best guards of the person. Therefore, instead of banning everything in the Internet governemnets should put every effort to increase moral and universally-accepted human values in the society, even thoug this is a very challenging task.
This post is dedicated to an overview of the US export restrictions of strong encryption systems. We present several arguments for the presence of such restrictions. After that, we analyse possible arguments of companies, individuals or event the whole countries for being against such export restrictions. Finally, we move to the highly controversial question, which is important for the future of the Internet: should the government control the Internet?
Reasons for export restrictions.
1. The first reason is obviously terrorist threat. The terrorist organizations may use strong encryption to plan and coordinate their operations. Therefore, it is vital task for the US (as well as other countries) to decrypt messages between terrorists in order to prevent catastrophes like 9/11 in the future. The only possible solution is to ban the export to countries, where terrorist can purchase the strong encryption systems. However, the problem is that terrorists organizations remain powerful and they can obtain such systems probably even in the USA through “fake” companies, for example.
2. The closely related reason is prevention of secret, coded correspondence among international criminal organizations and individuals. Assumingly, if there is a restriction, the large criminal organizations will not be able to make the correspondence secret enough.
3. No doubt, the USA wants to maintain the position of World’s superpower. Since Soviet Union times the USA was considered as only available protection against “USSR aggression”. The USSR has vanished, but the States still want to be perceived as guards of the whole world. So the only possible solution for preserving the leading role of superpower is to posses something which other countries cannot easily copy. Years ago it was nuclear bombs. Now, in the digital society, it is information that matters and especially methods how to protect sensitive information. Therefore, USA simply wants to be able to read messages of other individuals/organizations/countries, while being intact by others.
4. Business – related issues. Banning the export of strong encryption systems, the US government could have a possibility to “read” correspondence of suspicious multinational companies, e.g. business consortia for price discrimination (when large multinational companies agree on illegal actions, e.g. price discrimination and communicate via secured networks).
Why should be against it
Consider that the US government wants to restrict the export of strong encryption systems. This will lead to an unbalanced situation since no other country would have access to those valuable systems. Furthermore, major companies and expertises specialised in encryption are located in the USA. Just like Cisco system. Rest of the world will feel really unsatisfied and discriminated when US is the one to possess all the major information. In this way US can also keep their role as been the most powerful country in the world. Perhaps they want to be above others in some way. With strong encryption system US will be able to effectively “read” lot of sensitive information outside US, meanwhile others can’t decrypt the codes of USA. This can give huge competitive advance for companies located in US territory. The companies inside US can use strong encryptions to protect their sensitive information. However, companies in Europe for example do not have opportunity to use such an effective system to protect their sensitive information.
The fact that they do not want to export these systems will hurt them in some ways. The companies specialised in this field (of strong encryption) will definitely loose customers. USA is just one country and there definitely would be potential customers around the world. Furthermore, by loosing potential customers they will also loose potential profits. Naturally they do not want that these strong encryption systems would be available for every country. Some compromise should be made so that solution could be obtained. One of possible solution is to apply restrictions to limited number of countries such as North Korea and Afghanistan.
Should Government control the Internet?
This matter is not just black and white and is really hard to answer. This matter definitely divides people into sides. On the other hand china already has something related to this. They have build huge countrywide firewall. In this way they can monitor everything that goes out and more importantly everything that comes in.
Controlling Internet inside country is more difficult. However, some matters should be controlled, but who has the right to decide on that. Such things could be Copyright infringements and other legal issues. Distribution of guns, explosives and drugs is more serious issue. As it has been witnessed is US and also in Finland not everyone should have the access to guns. Shootings in places like schools could maybe be prevented in some cases.
Also issues that are potentially dangerous to the welfare and prosperity of the society. Specially matters concerning children should be taken seriously like child porn.
Goivernment of many countries (Cuba, Iran, China etc) are already controlling the Internet, cencoring the cyperspace for anti-government political statements. Also, despite common misunderstandings, the Internet is quite easy to contol (consider content blocking, nation-wide firewalls). Much of this control is targeted to suppress the opposition in totalitarian countires and prevent access to anti-government websites.
However, we believe that the main aim of the government should be the creation of a legal framework for the Internet. Those issues, that can endanger the welfare of society, such as illegal drug distribution, child pornography, weapons distribution sites should be considered as illegal and the correponding laws should be designed. However, fundamnetal rights of human beings, such as freedom of speech/expression should be still valid, and people should have the chance to present their opinions, even very critical ones.
We believe that unregulated Internet is like a powerful explosive with already running timer. Certain actions should be taken to control the Intenet even withinb the borders of a country throug creation of adequate legal framework. Importantly, the framework should be created in cooperation with many representatives of society, including governmnets, human rights advocates, lawyers, technical specialist and other individuals and organisations. Moreover, every government’s action toward the regulation of the Internet should be immediately made public, explained well and could be possible to protest and revoke in case of society’s disagreemnet.
The final thouhgt: the morale and values of a person are the best guards of the person. Therefore, instead of banning everything in the Internet governemnets should put every effort to increase moral and universally-accepted human values in the society, even thoug this is a very challenging task.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)